Alright, here We go! I’ve been meaning to do this for a long time and I decided the best Way for Me to go about it would be to Create a static Page which is easy to find. The Page Will be as long as necessary to cover everything I Wish to say, and the Intent-Ion is to provide as much of My personal opinion and perspective as possible so that any Common Man can quickly and easily identify Key elements within the information to help One Win when falsely arrested.
In most cases, I believe it should be reasonably easy to Win any case if One is Truly falsely arrested/charged, and I Will provide a couple of Key factors to help One identify whether or not that’s the case. Most readers of My Blog Will know I am not a lawyer, though I have studied [mostly international] Law independently, and I am legally and Lawfully Sovereign, so I Will be tall King about that (a little bit), too.
The reason I feel this is important information is because the People of a Constitutional Democratic Monarchy are Sovereign in Our natural State. When Acting in One’s Sovereign capacity on a Court of Record, the People become the Crown and are entitled to all of the Protections of the Common Law (which are all rights Given by God). I’m sharing My experiences from this Court case with You because I believe My approach Will work for any One, and I don’t believe any One should be afraid to remind the Court that the People are the authority of Law in Canada.
I suppose I should point out that the link to the police information is at the top of this Page. As a prequel, I think I made five to six court presentations before the Matter was finally set to go to trial, the charges were withdrawn ‘at the request of Crown’ within a few days after My last court presentation.
Preamble: The unfortunate thing about having the charges withdrawn before trial is that I won’t ever really know why they were withdrawn, We can only speculate. The other unfortunate detail is that I am tall King about information Presented against Me, so although My intention is to be as objective as possible, My opinion is obviously prejudice – not only because of the information presented, but because I know the [My] Truth of what happened. I’m going to try to go over the information as if I am removed from it entirely to try to remain focused only on what the information is alleging, at least for the purpose of this interpretation. (I Will likely feel compelled to share My Truth of the actual events some other time and Will provide a link, maybe). 😉
1. There are two primary reasons I knew I would win regardless how it all Played out. The first, is that I was Acting in My Sovereign capacity for every single Court Presentation. I never provided the Court with any kind of ‘joinder’ to the incorporated person (which is the name charged on the information). Prosecution was as King of Me for identification on the very first Court date and was Given My Cestui Que Vie. It was Noted that this document would be added to the Court of Record by the Court Justice. Prosecution was not impressed.
I have well informed Friends from study groups that Will suggest that One immediately accepts the jurisdiction and authority of the Court simply by the Act of showing up, One is ‘representing’ that [commercial] Character. Again, this is why it is important for Me to share these experiences because that is not True. Or at the very least, I don’t believe it is.
The reason it isn’t True is because the Sovereign is always the authority of the Court, a Sovereign’s Jurisdiction can never be taken away, it can only be Given away. If I had Wished to, I could have let them Play all of their tricks for every single court appearance right up until the date of trial and if they had proceeded to trial, that is when I would have placed My Cestui Que Vie on the Court of Record as My very first statement of defence. The second I produce that document, I am Acting in My Sovereign capacity, I am the authority of the Court.
I didn’t do that because I had My Cestui Que Vie with Me every time I was in Court anyway, so when they called, ‘Sean von Dehn’, I would respond (again, some would suggest the Act of doing so is an acceptance of jurisdiction) to the name, but I would ‘correct’ the Status and Style of it, “Actually, King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God.”
I have to admit, the first time the Words came out of My mouth in a Courtroom of People I startled My Self a little. The strangest thing about it was that nobody even flinched, it was like the room was expecting Me to say it. For Honourable Justice, Normal Boxall, I had to say it twice because he pretended not to hear Me the first time, and that is an example of a trick they (Courts) may try, “Okay, Mr. von Dehn, come on up here.”
This time, considerably louder, “Again Your Honour, it’s King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God…”, then I turned to the People in the Court because it was sounding a little humorous, even for Me, “funny as that may sound, it’s legally True.”
“Okay then, please come on up.” At this point I was already making My Self comfortable, bowed My head and said, “Thank You, Your Honour.”
Acting in One’s Sovereign Capacity means to be an example of Law, Courts are all about Honour, and the Sovereign’s True Duty is to Act in the best interest of the People. I’m going to share one other example of My Court experiences to demonstrate how One should Act in One’ Sovereign Capacity, as this approach was actually commended by Honourable Justice, Perkins McVey.
I spent most of the morning watching the Honourable Justice, initially because I Wished to get a sense of the Justice before Presenting My Self, but she was also ‘teaching’ the People of the Court, addressing the Courtroom from time to time, involving the People with intent to help them understand the system and some of the codes better. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Court for the first time ever. I always find it interesting, but this was entertaining and educational. She was funny, too!
Anyway, when I finally did have a chance to Present My Self I walked up to the gate entrance, stopped and addressed the Justice, “If You think it would please Her Majesty, permission to make My Self comfortable, Your Honour?”, and motioned toward where I Wished to sit.
Honourable Justice Perkins McVey nodded her head with a broad smile and addressed the People of the Court, “Now, that is how One should introduce themselves to a Court if One Wishes to make a Good impression.”
She did follow it up with a bit of a joke because there was some miscommunication, she said, ‘however, ‘Your Honour’ is fine, ‘Her Majesty’ is reserved for the Queen. So I had to apologize and explain that I was as King of Her Honour if it would please the Queen to allow Me to make My Self comfortable.’
So things got off to a very Good start, as We laughed about that briefly for a moment, too, then prosecution read out the charges against Me and the Justice was as King of Me if I understood the charges against Me, and if I know how I Wish to plead. Entering a plea is an acceptance of jurisdiction, so this is important if One is Wishing to immediately challenge jurisdiction. The next exchange between My Self and the Honourable Justice are critically important.
“Well, Your Honour, I’m actually Giving this Court Notice of Motion of Counter Claim.”
The Justice was clearly surprised but her tone was receptive and quizzical, interested, “Well, I’m not sure, but I don’t think You can do that in this Court.”
So a couple of things I Wish to point out here. A Justice generally tells One what they can or can’t do if they are Acting as the authority of the Court. Theoretically, they should never be Acting as authority of the Court, they should be Acting as an impartial Magistrate of the Court between the two parties. And let’s be honest, I’m sure Justice Perkins McVey knows very well what I can or can’t do in Court; she’s not telling Me what I can do, she’s as King Me if I can, if I know how. It’s subtle, but it’s Honourable and the Words I used were clear enough for a Justice to understand what I was doing – We are on a Common Law Court of Record and I just Gave the Court Notice of Motion of Counter Claim – it’s already done! So now that I’ve Given the Common Law Court of Record ‘Notice’ of Motion of Counter Claim, I make the Motion.
“Well, Your Honour, I hereby Claim that Constable Christopher Jenkyn’s of the Ottawa Police Service exceeded his jurisdiction and authority causing harm by the loss of My Common Law rights.”
The rest of the conversation was equally entertaining but I’m going to cut it short. Justice McVey suggested again that she thinks I need a civil court for that, not a criminal court, and I insisted that I’m still in a Common Law Jurisdiction, which has Superior authority. The Justice suggested that the Common Law is an ‘elusive’ (think that was the Word used) Jurisdiction of Law, to which I replied, “Not to Me, it’s not.”
Anyway, the end result of My encounter with Honourable Justice Perkins McVey was to have the charges withdrawn for conflict of interest, all I needed was a letter showing I was still a client of the Salvation Army. Again, whether it seems as though any of the Words I said that day were heard or not, it doesn’t change the Power of those Actions if the case were to go to trial. Trial is when One gets to revisit all these Quest-Ions and defence is compelled to answer, they won’t be able to claim they were not given fair Notice of My defence. Although it wasn’t funny at the time, I Writ down the wrong Court date and had a warrant issued for My arrest but was able to have the warrant rescinded and a new date rescheduled, (special thanks to Honourable Mr. Shouldice for defending My Honour that day).
So that’s it for the Sovereign stuff but that’s the first and main reason why I believe the charges were withdrawn. The reason I believe My Words were effective with Justice Perkins McVey is because We immediately moved from tall King about whether or not I could do what I Wished to do, to how We could have the charges withdrawn. It was the Justice who suggested the Matter was a conflict of interest, not Me.
2. The second reason the charges may have been withdrawn was sloppy police paperwork. This is how any Common Man can approach an information and what to look for.
I said I would offer a very quick Way of knowing if One has been charged with an offence that is only criminal in a commercial jurisdiction, or if One has committed a real Common Law crime. It is a very simple Quest Ion, is there an injured party? No? No crime in a Common Law jurisdiction, You have been charged under a statute or code. Yes? Then the Actions are criminal in the Common Law and probably codified into a Criminal Act.
I really do not enjoy going over the information because they really do try to portray One’s Character in the most unfavourable light possible. So know the information is going to look bad. It’s designed to intimidate the accused, don’t let it.
The information makes Me sound like a spoiled brat, but when One gets beyond that, what was the criminal Act? I’m not even going to provide My side of the Story, We’re just going to examine the information. Allegedly, Jenkyn’s asked Me to leave, I refused and was told I was being placed under arrest for ‘refusing to leave as directed‘. Is that a criminal act? The charge is mischief, ‘Willful interference of the lawful use/enjoyment of property’ (see the information for the full description).
So there are a couple of Quest-Ions to consider here. What was the criminal act? Was I being charged with mischief for refusing to leave as directed by constable Jenkyn, or by Salvation Army staff? More importantly, is refusing to leave as directed by either one a criminal offence? At the time I didn’t know the answer to this Quest-Ion for sure but I found it very hard to believe that any of My Actions would actually be a criminal offence even according to Canada’s fiction of law, which is why I was Happy to face the charges either Way. As it turns out, refusing to leave when directed by staff or constable Jenkyn’s is not a criminal offence or breach of any contract, I may only be directed to leave the facility I am dependent on for shelter if My overall behaviour and/or actions place My Self, staff, or other clients at risk.
That’s the easiest Way to look at it. Let’s presume all the information is true, I called the lady in the kitchen a bitch and flipped her the bird. It isn’t very nice and certainly not appropriate or polite behaviour, but it’s not criminal and the Actions never placed any One ‘at risk’ of anything. So that’s essentially why I knew I would win exclusively relative to the information without having anything to do with Sovereignty. If this had been a nightclub or something, the charge would be valid because they are private and can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason, this is a private organization contracted by the city to provide a public service, rights are protected.
I also said the police work was sloppy, so I Wish to touch on some of the reasons why. If We read Kimberly’s report and were to presume that the original ‘crime’ of mischief investigated by Jenkyn’s was for calling the lady in the kitchen ‘a bitch’, Kimberly’s report clearly indicates she didn’t hear the comment first hand. It’s not admissible in Court, its hearsay. She also notes that I was busy collecting the rest of My breakfast items when she confronted Me to ask Me what happened. This indicates that whatever ‘incident’ had occurred, it was over (and certainly no One ‘at risk’). Kimberly’s statement works against her, she is instigating conflict (which is pretty much precisely what happened).
I wasn’t worried about the marijuana charge at all because if Jenkyn’s can’t prove he had a valid reason to make the arrest, the search and seizure is unlawful and inadmissible anyway.
Jenkyn’s also made the mistake of charging Me with a P.O.A. (Provincial Offences Act) for ‘failing to leave as directed’. Didn’t We already see that and receive a charge for mischief? One cannot charge a Man twice for the same crime. (You would think he would at least try to be more creative with the wording of it).
There’s a couple of other things shady about the information, this detail I find particularly interesting. I believe Jenkyn’s was ‘coaching’ the witness statements because there is something very peculiar about them. I read a lot of Blog’s of People Writing from first person perspective, very, very, rarely do I ever hear Authors use, ‘this Writer…’ Kimberly and Nathalie both refer to themselves as ‘this Writer’ in their statements.
The other shady thing Constable Jenkyn’s did was ask for one of the conditions for My bail to be to not come within 50 meters of Nathalie Younger or Kimberly Lovell, and the intention of course was to make it appear as though I was some kind of risk to their safety. Thankfully, the condition was made ‘without their revocable consent’, so I just went to each as King of them for it, only to discover one of the individuals was horrified and insisted she knew nothing about it and had certainly not requested it. She also confessed to Me that she was just following protocol and was horrified by how the officer (Jenkyn’s) handled the situation. I asked if she would be willing to testify to this in Court and she confirmed she would ‘as long as I’m allowed to’. I laughed and told her she’s listed as one of the witnesses against Me, so she’ll be expected to!
Now You might empathize with why I was looking forward to My trial date so much. Anyway, if anyone has any Quest-Ions about the information, don’t hesitate to shoot Me a message.
Love and Blessings,